Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 26	May 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. I'm not seeing any actual arguments against redirection given the valid {{r from author}}, and am thus interpreting the "delete" votes as "does not meet inclusion criteria" and support for redirection. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Winograd[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

disputed redirect - not enough in-depth independent coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United States of America, and California. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the 22 cited sources, 14 are self-published contents (1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21); 6 have no or trivial mentions of the subject (2, 3, 5, 7, 16, 22); and two are interviews (11, 16). Searching for the subject online, I found a lot of times when he was mentioned in passing or just quoted once. In the rare cases where he did receive significant coverage, like in this Atlantic article, the content would read more like narratives than any objective reportings. Lacks sufficient coverage from RS and IS to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect article. Not enough reliable sources. Redirect to Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 4 sources, 3 don’t exist/work at all. The other one is an Amazon link. This clearly fails GNG. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No substantial discussion of the sources presented. WP:NSINGER reads "may be redirected" not "should be redirected", so that is not a strong argument in itself. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chikezie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER, dubious "legal controversies" Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Streeter, Leslie Gray (2008-12-16). "Caroling With Chikezie!". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Not so Season 7's 10th place finisher Chikezie. He dropped the "Eze" but never dropped out of sight, due to his short but memorable stay on the show, his Luther Vandross-esque vocals and his gloriously boffo version of The Beatles' I've Just Seen A Face. Only a few months after finishing the "Idols Live!" tour, Eze joins fellow Idol alumni Kimberley Locke, Diana DeGarmo and David Hernandez on the "American Stars In Concert For The Holidays" tour, which fa-la-la's its way into the Kravis Center on Wednesday."
2. "'American Idol' finalist comes to N.V. Opera House". Napa Valley Register. 2009-02-11. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "At 4 p.m. in the Café Theater downstairs, the 23-year-old Nigerian-American singer, who emerged from Los Angeles to compete in both Season 6 and Season 7 of the blockbuster TV program, will host a free “meet-and-greet” with aspiring “American Idol” contestants. ... Chikezie began singing at 13 and claims as his influences “Donny Hathaway, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, John Legend, Sam and Dave, and anyone that makes good music.”"
3. Tomcho, Sandy (2008-11-28). "Former 'American Idol' Chikezie Eze speaks out". Times Herald-Record. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Chikezie Eze hasn't had a moment to breathe since appearing on the most recent season of "American Idol." He's been on the road as part of the "American Idols Live Tour 2008" and just signed on for a holiday tour with former "AI" contestants Diana DeGarmo, Kimberley Locke and David Hernandez, which brings him to the Lycian Centre on Sunday."
4. "American Idol finalist to visit Idol NV". American Canyon Eagle. 2009-01-29. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Born Chikezie Eze, in Inglewood, California to Richard Eze and Chika Emerueh Eze who emigrated from Nigeria, he began singing at the tender age of 13. He has a younger brother (Obinna Eze) and an older sister (Odochi Eze). Chikezie attended high school at the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies and Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas. ... After his elimination from American Idol on March 26, 2008, Chikezie has made appearances on Live with Regis and Kelly, The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, and The Ellen DeGeneres Show, following a 3 month American Idol Concert tour."
5. Powers, Ann (2008-03-12). "'Idol' Banter: A close reading of Chikezie Eze". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "This week’s big reveal, happily, was musical. Chikezie pulled off what no other contestant has yet this season: He brought revelation to the “Idol” stage, from the beginning of his turn to the end. ... His energetic, utterly controlled rendition related a master narrative in four sections: ... But there came Chikezie, showing us how to do it without spinning one rap line. Hip-hop defined his joyous leap from style to style and his sly incorporation of vocal “samples” (that Daltrey stutter, for example). Mostly, it was present in his attitude: gleefully witty and self-aware, but impassioned too."
6. Powers, Ann (2008-03-28). "Suddenly, a lot less soul". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Why does it feel like this year’s “American Idol” family is getting whiter and whiter? Chikezie’s elimination Wednesday night is a big blow to the Top 10’s overall energy and fun quotient, and to fans of the R&B-based; pop that’s well served so many previous finalists. ... Still, I’m sad that we’ve lost this season’s one true soul singer, and one of the program’s most charismatic black male contestants. Chikezie worked his Luther vibe a little too hard, solidifying his stance in a way that much of America couldn’t support."
7. Hufstader, Louisa (2009-02-18). "Chikezie offers advice to aspiring 'Idols' in Napa". Napa Valley Register. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "“American Idol” 10th-place finalist Chikezie met with about a dozen teenaged singers and their attendant family members at the Napa Valley Opera House Café Theatre on Saturday afternoon, answering questions about his two seasons on the popular television show and sharing his tips for success."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chikezie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to the appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Additionally, someone should probably look at the wording of the section dealing with his legal issues to determine if it's appropriate. Not my area of expertise. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to get additional assessments of new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm not seeing coverage that demonstrates notability outside of the context of his Idol appearance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosguill. 33ABGirl (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cealia Pompeius Pulchellus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HOAX. See also discussion at WT:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ifly6 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nothing to support existence + very very very implausible name makes it probable its nothing more than yet another hoax. Its amazing it managed to stay around for 13 years. Also amazing how bad hoaxers are at understanding Roman naming conventions/rules.★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is also a redirect to this page – Cealia, Cupid's blessing. – I think it should also be deleted. Based on the page history, it was the original page title here AFD'd. Ifly6 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be deleted automatically if this article is deleted I'm pretty sure.★Trekker (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mention it due to the redirect possibly providing another epithet; it, of course, gave no leads except back to Wikipedia. Ifly6 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:G3. Found no proof of the subject's existence, and it wasn't even mentioned in the first cited source. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Pretty obviously not an authentic name (although "Cealia" could have been a typo for "Caelia" or "Cerealia", which still would not go with "Pompeius"; I could not find any examples of "Pulchellus" in the C-S Datenbank, but there was a Cestia Pulchella who built a tomb for herself and the late Marcus Granius Dexter at Himera). I note that nobody here explicitly mentioned checking the Historia Augusta, which presumably would be the source for any modern works mentioning him. So I did, and there's nobody matching any of these names mentioned in the "Life of Commodus" (except for the Pompeianus who failed to assassinate him). I don't know whether deleting the article will delete the redirect; it might have to be done separately. P Aculeius (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see the HA mentioned at CGR talk, mea culpa! P Aculeius (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Historia Augusta is not a reliable source, and there is no mention of this event in the biography of Commodus, either. Also, WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT suggest the place to cover this incident of rape and murder, which appears to be the only reason the subject might even be considered notable, would be in the biography of Commodus, since that is an existing article about the perpetrator. Whether the article is a hoax or not, the person appears to be non-notable, anyway, so we shouldn't have a separate biography in any case. A merger and redirect to the article about Commodus, if the facts can be verified from other sources, or perhaps one about the "Temple of Venus", of which there are several different ones in Rome, alone, could have been appropriate for a well sourced article, but this case appears hopeless. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Historia Augusta may be notoriously unreliable, but most of the persons and many of the events it records are known from independent sources, and in many instances it is the only source available. While it must be treated with caution, the fact that a person or event is known only from the HA is not a good reason for deletion; even people and events whose historicity is dubious may be notable. But in this instance, there are excellent reasons to regard the entire article as a hoax—primarily the fact that it isn't in the Historia Augusta, or any other source we know of, and because the name is implausible, and the article written as though it were the invention of a Wikipedia editor without much knowledge of Roman history, and without using any kind of authentic source—Roman or modern. The key to this discussion is not whether the Historia Augusta is reliable, but whether the account comes from any Roman source, credible or otherwise—and it does not appear to do so. P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its 100% a hoax, even this "persons" name is an utter joke and impossible for an actual Roman to have had. Merge has no possibility to happen here.★Trekker (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search for Cealia Pompeius Pulchellus at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta , found nothing. Koopinator (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No coverage, doubtful existence , Alex-h (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a hoax. Even the obscure names from that age will get a listing in some of the classical directories/encyclopedias, and very unusual names like this even more so (hence the hoax), but zip for this person. Great spot. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 18:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:TROUT to OceanCoombs for pontificating at length in a matter that was not conducive to reaching a community consensus in this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book does not reach notability standards for a stand-alone article. The only results I could find in a search is for booksellers and reader/blogger reviews, but no professional reviews, or appearances on best-seller lists. ... discospinster _talk 21:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no book reviews, nothing for mentions in RS.Not meeting notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV-compliant sources either. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to an Alcatraz series article, or if no one feels like writing one, to Brandon Sanderson bibliography#Alcatraz. I agree that I'm not finding RS reviews, but good grief there are a ton of non-RS ones, audiobook discussions, and a collection that includes these and the other novels. Under no circumstances should it be deleted--there are just too many ATDs out there. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep per Cunard's sourcing, which I looked for but did not find. I guess I don't have the Google Fu with literature I do with television. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Burkham, Anita L. (January–February 2011). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens". The Horn Book Magazine. Vol. 87, no. 1. p. 100. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "Alcatraz's seat-of-the-pants narration--with references to "wombats, outer space, and stamp collections" in chapters that don't exist, direct requests to readers (to change their underwear daily, for instance), and self-referential comments on the literary nature of the book--might make the series appear at first to be a zany, kid-pandering mess, but the charismatic characters hold the whole enterprise together while the stealth plot unfolds. ... As goofy randomness streamlines into compelling narration, even readers who don't find giant robots reason alone to pick up a book will be drawn into Alcatraz's cohesive world, with its unique form of magic and that magic's natural enemy, the Librarians."
2. Reid, Connie (2022-10-19). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens (Alcatraz #4)". YA Books Central. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
  The page notes: "Star ratings in yellow are from our Staff Reviewers. Star ratings in green are reader reviews. Anyone can post a reader review, so post yours today!"
  The review from Connie Reid is a staff review. The review notes: "What I Liked: Brandon Sanderson’s ability to integrate the silly into a story enhances this series and makes it all the more appealing for Middle-Grade readers each time. My family enjoyed the chapter names this go around. It went from chapter 2 to chapter 6 with a quick explanation of what boring things happened in the missing chapters and why he threw them out. I especially loved the nod to Star Trek with the chapter titled NCC-1701."
3. Raklovits, Amanda (November 2012). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens". School Library Journal. Vol. 58, no. 11. p. 54. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "He strikes the right balance between Alcatraz's naturally snarky tone and the surprisingly serious moments as the boy comes to terms with his mounting responsibility and shifting perspective. As listeners familiar with the series know, Alcatraz frequently breaks from the narrative to address them directly on any number of ostensibly unrelated subjects, and de Ocampo shifts neatly between the action and these asides, maintaining the listeners' interest throughout. For those who prefer their fantasy with a dash of slapstick, plenty of metafictional humor, and a heap of irreverence."
4. "The Chapter Book/Easy Reader Shelf". Children's Bookwatch. Vol. 21, no. 1. Midwest Book Review. January 2011. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
  This is a two-sentence review. The review notes: "Brandon Sanderson's Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens (9780439925570, $17.99) tells of Alcatraz Smedry, who has been the subject of prior adventures and who here appears in a final adventure where he faces down an army of librarians and their giant librarian robots in a war. If they win, everything Alcatraz has fought for will be threatened in this absorbing story of gigantic robots, evil librarians, and danger."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cunard's sources above seem sufficient to show NBOOK can be met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's excellent sourcing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, OceanCoombs and discospinster really shouldn't have been edit warring prior to this article being nominated for deletion: discospinster reverting OceanCoombs, OceanCoombs reverting discospinster, discospinster reverting OceanCoombs, OceanCoombs reverting discospinster, discospinster tagging for notability and nominating it for deletion. Discospinster (as an admin) should know better than to engage in edit warring, even if it didn't reach 3RR (barely). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Irony of Proposing to Delete a Book about Burning Books[edit]

The author of this book series depicts, in this very series, the moral hazard of burning heaps of disorganized books in order to more easily organize the few that remain.

As a user of Wikipedia, I expect every single book I read to have a dedicated Wikipedia article about that book. As an editor of Wikipedia (for more than ten years through my homeschooling group editor account) I feel a responsibility to the users to provide them with the experience that I wish I had. From over a decade of experience editing Wikipedia, I know that all editors have a responsibility to all users to give them the best possible experience by preserving and building upon the collective knowledge of all human history, instead of shrinking and condensing it with waves of deletions. Like the keepers of the Library of Alexandria, we are meant to protect knowledge and should refuse to allow any article-burning bonfires that put at risk the collection we have built. Each time a group of experienced Wikipedia editors vote to delete an article about a topic which is likely to become more important, more noteworthy, and meaningful to more people in the future, the editors deprive untold numbers of future learners access to the inspiration to contribute to the quality of the articles that already exist. In all the years that I have edited Wikipedia, this tendency by certain other editors to see book burning as a useful housecleaning tool has repeatedly perplexed and stifled me. I would have contributed more to Wikipedia than I already have, in fact, if not for encountering this exact phenomenon which tells would-be editors that we have nothing of value to contribute, and the proof of our worthlessness is right in front of us on our screens where the value we would contribute has not yet been contributed so the missing contributions by virtue of being missing prove to us that nobody else considers our contributions to have value or somebody else would already have contributed what we are capable of contributing. Burning articles that do not yet have our contributions added to them because we have not yet contributed contributes to the high rate of article bonfire cleansing and the relatively low rate of editor contributions to improve the articles that need to be improved in order to be worthy of preservation.

On a less poetic note I would like to point out that before I came along 4 out of 6 of the books in the Alcatraz series had dedicated articles. the first one did. the second one did. the third one did. the FIFTH one did. As a user the appearance of missing information is aggravating and distressing. As an editor I would like to draw your attention to Template:Infobox book. What exactly is the point of this:

  | preceded_by       = <\!-- for books in a series -->
  | followed_by       = <\!-- for books in a series -->

If we cannot provide to the user a complete and consistent path through every book in a series they are trying to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanCoombs (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every book? So you propose to get rid of the notability standard for Wikipedia? Only for books, or for every individual, every company? By your argument, deleting an article about an individual is akin to killing that person. There are places where you can read about all the books, for example GoodReads. Wikipedia is not GoodReads, nor is it a directory of everything ever published or everything that has ever existed, and it was never meant to be that. ... discospinster _talk 15:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If OceanCoombs is really as new as the account's contributions suggest, this is borderline WP:BITEy behavior, discospinster. Surely we can all work to support people who are trying to enhance things without having 10+ years of Wikipedia history and policy knowledge to fall back on. Fact is, OC's point is relatively valid: Why have a break in an otherwise notable series? Notability is a norm, not a requirement, and while it may never be a Wikipedia-approved reason, having a series entry for a non-notable book in an otherwise notable book series is actually a reasonable exception to notability. We've been saying "there are no precedents!" for so long, we risk beginning to look unreasonable and unencyclopedic in such cases. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanCoombs, per their comment, is an editor with over 10 years experience, not a newcomer. Now if you want to talk about reasonable exceptions, that's one thing. But if you want to compare deleting an article to book burning, I will have to go ahead and disagree. It reminds me of the old "Wikipedia is stifling free speech" argument. Article deletion is a valid act and part of the maintenance of the encyclopedia, even if it hurts people's feelings. ... discospinster _talk 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had overlooked that, my apologies. And no, I did not, nor do I now, endorse a comparison between book burning and Wikipedia editorial processes. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the previous speedy deletion and Objection to New Speedy Deletion[edit]

In my opinion, the final vote for or against deletion in this case should be deferred for 30 days or more because the pending proposal for deletion is out of order. Consider how we got here:

On the 21 August 2021 at 01:58 this page was nominated for deletion. and at 9:30 on the same day all the content of the page was replaced with a redirect. Effectively this was a speedy deletion that violated the Criteria for speedy deletion. See also this Field Guide to proper speedy deletion which emphasizes the mistake that was made previously when this book was deleted by replacement with redirect instead of being improved upon or even discussed in a proposal for deletion. My decision to restore the previous article and improve upon it is being interfered with by the new deletion proposal, which I understand to mean a vote to keep or delete may occur any time after seven days, and instead of spending time improving the article as I intended most of my Wikipedia editing time in the last 7 days has been spent here discussing whether to delete that which I intend to improve.

The fact that the current deletion discussion is a result of my attempt to restore and improve the article strongly suggests to me that any decision to delete should first give enough time for improvements to be made AND that a deletion decision resulting from this discussion should be required to provide some proof that this book or this article (after it has been improved) somehow violates a Rule or Policy that MUST be enforced aggressively for some good editorial reason, because a decision to delete in this situation itself violates a fundamental premise of what Wikipedia is and why we are able to make it work: "Wikipedia is both a product and a process." The premise that it is perfectly acceptable for every article to always be under construction.

Absent any affirmative proof that this book or article violate a Rule or Policy requiring deletion, a Rule or Policy that MUST be enforced in order to prevent harm or solve a problem caused by the existence of legitimate, useful, accurate, factual and reliably-sourced Wikipedia content (particularly when that content pertains to a book or a work of art which is part of culture and inherently interesting to more people as time goes by) such as harm caused by paid editing conflict-of-interest content in Wikipedia, or the harm caused by violations of editors' privacy rights or other privacy violation such as doxxing and articles about non-public people or children, an article such as one about a book or work of art ALWAYS deserves a presumption of innocence and an "under-construction" sign with a place for editors to do the work and for users to read and consider contributing to this work themselves. The current proposal for deletion contains no affirmative proof that this article violates any such Rule or Policy requiring speedy deletion or any deletion or revision such as the previous decision to replace the article content with a redirect to the author's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanCoombs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stare Decisis[edit]

Stare Decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided") is the principle of deferring to previous decisions in deciding future verdicts. For 10 years since the creation of this page editors decided this book was worthy of the time and effort to dedicate a Wikipedia article about it. Stare Decisis should be the binding Precedent followed by all editors when we propose to overturn all previous editors' judgments allowing an article to have time to be improved upon and to render a different verdict. Under the principle of Stare Decisis we MUST find affirmative and clear evidence that the previous verdict rendered by every other editor for a decade was incorrect and MUST be reversed for a reason that improves Wikipedia going forward and makes the new decision that overturns the previous verdict more constructive as precedent.

Here we do not have any evidence to suggest to us that the previous verdict was wrong, therefore, to stand in the things that have been decided, we MUST keep and improve this article about a book that might be notable already, might become more notable in the future, and is part of a notable book series authored by an historically-significant and notable author. OceanCoombs (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Grave[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. There simply isn't any major media coverage for this movie. RteeeeKed 💬📖 20:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RteeeeKed 💬📖 20:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick googling of "Hitler's Grave" shokof and ""Heaven's Taxi" shokof", didn't get anything glaringly useful. Daryush Shokof looks iffy too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~I agree, the director of the film looks sketchy too, so Delete that page as well.~~ RteeeeKed 💬📖 16:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who nominated the article for deletion, so the nomination itself is essentially a "vote" to deelte. You can't be double-counted. Zaathras (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. RteeeeKed 💬📖 00:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG, no Significant coverage, no Reliable sources. Nobody (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Phatfish. ✗plicit 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 (Phatfish album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've searched for articles on these albums, but for each I've only come up with a review and a short news piece (and for two of them, a passing mention). They don't pass WP:NALBUMS#1.

BEFORE search:

15: review, short news snip
In Jesus: review, short news snip, passing mention
Anthems for Worship: review, short news snip, passing mention SWinxy (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. SWinxy (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to - and unlink from - Phatfish, rather than delete. Thanks to nom for doing a WP:BEFORE search, helpful. Agree that it fails WP:NALBUM/WP:SIGCOV. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phatfish per nom, although after looking through that article I'm not too confident in the group's notability either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all (three albums) to Phatfish. Some of the band's other works got some notice, but these three albums seem to have been generally ignored by the reliable music media, and the articles are dependent on minor fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ensign[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional content, no citations. Absolutely surprised that a completely unsourced BLP has survived in mainspace since 2007(!). Housekeeping note, I'm intentionally not notifying the original author as they don't seem to be active anymore. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I verified that he did indeed have some charting singles on the Billboard charts, but that's as far as I was able to find information about him. Pretty weird that someone with several charting singles does not even have a local newspaper article archived somewhere, but whatever. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Images use are uploaded by Sean Ensign on Commons. There's no verifying sources within the article - nor for any of the music. External links look to all be his sites. Nothing of substantive sourcing that I can see. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find is a wrestling coach in Baltimore with the same name. Very old school wikipedia article, still has myspace page! Delete for no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The charting singles are not the kind to meet WP:MUSICBIO charting requirements. Since there are no proper citations, then it should be deleted. Hkkingg (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to C.D.S. Tampico Madero#Stadium. ✗plicit 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Zapote[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find enough sources to establish notability of this never-built building. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to C.D.S. Tampico Madero#Stadium. Not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When There's No More Room in Hell: Volume I[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for over a decade. Found no significant coverage of the subject, nor any useful reviews on music sites. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find the sources needed to meet the GNG. Will reconsider if some are found, but the fact that most artists on this compilation album are red links, and not even Allmusic has a review, are pretty bad signs... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't have any sources at all. Agreed with Sergecross73. CastJared (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. QuietHere (talk &#124 contributions) 23:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When most of the people who are on the album are not notable, I seriously doubt that the album is. No sources too, which backs this up. ULPS (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#A. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ayres[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly NN cricket player whose only claim of importance as allegedly having played only one "First-class cricket" match in 1829. Even this claim of importance seems improbable, since the term didn't come into use as defined today until May 1894. Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. These kind of nominations are very tedious for all concerned. If a thorough WP:BEFORE has been conducted and no in-depth sources can be found, then WP:BOLD should be the way to go and in this case, redirected to List of English cricketers (1826–1840). PRODing or AfDing the article isn't really a constructive use of everyone's time, including the nominators. StickyWicket (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First-class cricket was officially adopted as the term to describe major cricket in May 1894 by the MCC, though limited to matches in the United Kingdom. In 1947, the term was further defined by the ICC to encompass matches outside the United Kingdom, with individual cricket boards of the Test playing nations having the power to grant first-class status to matches (which remains the case to this day amongst the now 12 Full Members of the ICC). It is worth noting that the 1947 definition does not provide retrospective first-class status to pre-1894 matches, however, more recently the ICC allowed the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians to retrospectively apply first-class status to matches before 1894. Therefore, the first ever first-class match is retrospectively dated as Hampshire v England in 1772. So this player and the team he played for are first-class. So that part of the nomination is incorrect. StickyWicket (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spiderone's decision. CastJared (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#A Unless anything else can be dug up on the subject that we don't already have (at least we have a YoB to go on from the christening) then I'm at redirect for now. Obviously a suitable redirect exists here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#A would be the best option here. There might well be some sourcing out there in Sussex books, but I certainly don't have access to them. The list has already had details and sources added so there's nothing really to merge to it iirc. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Godzilla games where mentioned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Trading Battle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only relies on a game database as source. Searches in either English or Japanese only yielded trivial mentions or entry on websites of its fans. Lacks enough coverage from IS to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that I already found this review and it's really hard to believe there is nothing about it in Japanese language print sources given it was a Godzilla franchise game. So there is probably something else out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've checked Newspapers.com and the company's website [1] but there is nothing about the game.Timur9008 (talk) 10:05, May 28, 2023 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. It exists, but it's certainly not notable, to the point where none of the companies involved (Toho/U/Tao) have ever showcased the game on their website or elsewhere. Outside of that, and apart from a short interview from one of the game's illustrators, I could not find anything substantial, both for the game's translated and original title. Toyota Impreza (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toyota Impreza: Given that its existence can be confirmed by reliable sources, a deletion wouldn't be proper. At the very least it would merit a redirect to List of Godzilla games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Godzilla games. Unable to find any further sources - no prejudice towards recreation if sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Godzilla games. Fails GNG, only source isn’t reliable, appears to be a forum type site. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selorm Kuadey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, even by the somewhat more lax standards of the old WP:NSPORT (and definitely not by the new). Only news pre-death seem to be his signing which is routine/WP:MILL coverage. The contesting of the PROD initially placed on the article would seem to indicate that because of his manner of death he is notable, but I would counter that it would then be a borderline BLP1E case if the only significant coverage is for that single event. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, United Kingdom, and England. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the majority of coverage found is waited to his untimely passing, there does seem to be some coverage of his career outside of his passing also, along with the extensive coverage of his death. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources would help this article. If more sporting statistics can be found, then add those as well. More info about the subject”s death would also be recommended. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very little in the way of statistics. He played one season for England U20 in 2007, can’t find any stats on that. 17 total appearances for Sale with two tries.

https://www.itsrugby.co.uk/players/selorm-kuadey-4460.html

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are stats and obits, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV. Two Keep votes found no sources during their BEFOREs so there is nothing else to eval. // Timothy :: talk 18:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Doesn't care about the article's itself. It did fail WP:GNG. Agreed with Timothy. CastJared (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the one BBC article meets the RS criteria, and I can't find any other source mentioning Kuadey. SWinxy (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete 1 June 2023 by Justlettersandnumbers: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Symon Sadik) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Sultanpur (2023 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:it is sad and unfortunate WP's existing policies are unable to accommodate articles such as this Jack4576 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant link: WP:NFILM. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources doesn't meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monhiroe (talk • contribs) 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article in the The Daily Star[2] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @A. B.: Your link doesn't go to an article about Sultanpur; can you clarify? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Worldbruce: These are the links. [3] [4] DareshMohan (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Ooops. DareshMohan got it right. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Chiarelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draftification with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches did not turn up enough other than routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP says that the sources for organizations needs to have higher standards then for the average article. Currently the sources do not even meet the looser standards. Adler3 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: WP:NCORP doesn't have enough citations to find. Best sources are nothing to go. CastJared (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bence Krakovszki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. I found stuff like Nemzeti Sport but it's not good enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Guilty Gear characters. ✗plicit 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ky Kiske[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies mostly on passing mentions. WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV , making most of the guilty gear characters vulnerable (example:Millia Rage. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters. Creation and reception do not demonstrate significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'm a longtime fan of this series and even I acknowledge they're niche.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge IGN and Anime News Network and... that's it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WPRQ-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Certainly not notable on its own as a Cozi passthrough; ~~I'm proposing we merge this, WHCQ-LD, and WEBU-LD into one article titled Ellington Broadcasting, but~~ the problem is the company's entire history involves passing through subchannel networks, and not a minute of original broadcasting from a studio in Mississippi. I'll listen to others to see what they think if the merge is strong enough. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was unaware of the heavy self-promotion through these pages and COI, switch to delete. And feel free to add those other two articles to this nom or in their own nom. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) has already nominated WHCQ-LD and WEBU-LD for deletion over the same GNG and COI issues being raised here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A station largely serving as a pass-through for national programming probably won't get over the GNG hump. Any merger into a single Ellington Broadcasting article probably wouldn't fix that — and it certainly would not rectify the COI issues the stations' articles have — the original creator back in 2007 was Dellington (talk · contribs) (and that original revision noted David Ellington as the station owner), and a key contributor in recent years has been Whcq (talk · contribs) — when one of the stations is, indeed, WHCQ-LD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious GNG fail. Diginet coatrack. The only appropriate ATD would be a redirect to list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Can be draftified by request at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XrOS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conjecture. Apple has registered the xrOS trademark with no indication that it will be a VR operating system. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. xrOS isn't a thing currently, and there is nothing notable to say about it. Companies have trademarked all sorts of things to use in the future - until they exist, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

WPscatter ^t/_c 05:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

things yet to exist can have entries on Wikipedia Jack4576 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SIGCOV having been met and therefore GNG Jack4576 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xrOS will be the operating system created by Apple for its virtual reality system is plainly false. If the operating system will be called xrOS and that has been established in a reputable publication such as The Verge, then the article can be recreated. This is a three sentence stub regardless. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi everyone, I am the user that created the article.

I've just edited a little bit the article itself, in order to delete for now my sentence of the OS belonging to the virtual reality area. I took off even a the relative category.

If it may helps, let me know... LucaLindholm (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. The article is inherently not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or keep. Borderline WP:TOOSOON, but this article's time will probably come extremely quickly, since Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference is approaching, and whatever OS Apple ends up running on its AR devices will certainly be notable. The rumors have been confirmed by a few RS by now [5]. Notability is admittedly still iffy, but unless the rumors turn out to be false, we'll probably end up just re-creating this article very shortly after its deletion. --Tserton (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt to keep work to the draft page. TOOSOON, as (I suspect) it'll surely pass N once announced. SWinxy (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ struck, see below until June 5 (WWDC announcement). The name "xrOS" was confirmed by Bloomberg based on internal sources rather than trademarks[6][7][8], but this is WP:CRYSTAL. We don't have articles on future products unless the development process itself meets the GNG. Almost never the case, and isn't the case here. DFlhb (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking purely due to the current date. By the time the "relist" expires, it'll be Saturday. xrOS will be announced Monday. Keep, pointless to draftify for only two days and potentially clutter WP:RMT afterwards. I've brought the article into solid shape with good sources; there's no resemblance with what was nominated. Do any other delete/draftify voters favour closing this as rendered pointless? DFlhb (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is speculative and therefore too early to exist. No substantial GNG can be met for something that wasn’t even announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Eclipse Ego[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non notable paintball marker/equipment. Whole article fails WP:NOTPROMO and has a history of it spanning many years. Ajf773 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Firearms. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Plus One (band)#Videography. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus One: The Home Video[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plus One may well have released a VHS format video cassette about "what the boys of do everyday on stage and off". Its production may well have been a joint work by Atlantic Records and Word Entertainment. How do we know this? WP:BEFORE done, and there would to be pretty much nothing that would verify this. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plus One (band)#VIdeography Utterly generic Christian bookstore filler with a couple music videos on it. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maipakpi Memorial Academy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently-formed English-medium upper primary school with no evidence of meeting WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - just an ordinary primary school like millions of others, nothing here indicates notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In local level, it did a lot. But, it is not published in newspaper and media. I can give you more proof. Please provide me your email 122.50.208.108 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources published then we cannot consider this a passing of GNG. Per that guideline sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Emailing me details about the school will not prove notability. If we are unable to cite published and reliable sources, we cannot have an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://stackschools.com/schools/14060311502/maipakpi-memorial-academy	Just a database page with enrolment figures, confirming most students are in pre-primary, as would be expected from a school that just got formed.	✘ No
https://careerurl.com/schools/maipakpi-memorial-academy-samurou-np-w-no-4-imphal-west-manipur	As above	✘ No
https://studybystep.com/educational-institutions/schools-in-manipur/school.php?village=SAMUROU%20N.P.%20W.%20NO.%204_imphal-west-wangoi	Another entry in a listing of schools which simply confirms that it's just a normal primary school, not an encyclopaedic topic	✘ No
https://www.indianskools.com/detail-of-schools/1262053/manipur/imphal-west/samurou-n-p-w-no-4/maipakpi-memorial-academy	Looks to be automatically generated in the sense that the table just repeats the prose above and it reads as if generated by AI rather than a journalist writing an article. In any case, the entry makes no claim to notability.	✘ No
msr-iw.pdf	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://myneta.info/manipur2022/candidate.php?candidate_id=8	No mention of the school	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.208.141 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per source assessment, fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone's source assessment. Pichpich (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CM Scientific English High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

English-medium institution with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Schools are required to pass one of the above or, preferably, both. My searches yielded Facebook, Wikipedia mirrors and Bharatpedia, which is user-generated. The current references fail to establish notability as the first one is Facebook, Indiacom contains no coverage other than the school's name and location and BSEM list is just an exhaustive list of schools in Manipur, mentioning this school once. I can't see any reason why this school, out of the hundreds or possibly thousands in that list of schools in Manipur, warrants an article of its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Manipur. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter Star Secondary School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find nothing to support a passing of WP:NORG or WP:GNG in my searches (including using "ब्राइटर स्टार माध्यमिक विद्यालय"). Article is currently pure WP:OR. The school does exist as it has its own Facebook page and an entry on Kaha6 but these sources do not confer any notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the school is in Nepal, relisting to allow more opportunity for editors with relevant language skills to possibly contribute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any English or Nepali-language sources. AryKun (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João de Abreu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and what I was able to find I added, which was that he lost in the first rounds Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Portugal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find significant prose coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Database entries are insufficient to establish notability per WP:NATHLETE. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no good sources available to indicate the subject meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those closes which makes nobody happy. There is genuine disagreement as to whether the available sources constitute SIGCOV or not. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine the "truth" of this without making a "supervote". Therefore I judge no consensus as to the notability of this topic. Perhaps a merge discussion could take place. Is there really so much material on the topic that such a large article should be written that it can't all appear on the Idol season's page? That is not what is being discussed here, but perhaps further discussion could take place on talk. Just a suggestion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Edwards (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Georgia (U.S. state). Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think if a nominator chooses to nominate multiple pages that have all survived one, two or, in this case, three previous deletion discussions, they're behooved to provide a bit more rationale than "fails WP:SINGER". Please explain what's changed, and what you found when researching the subject. pburka (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 6) - this appears to be a WP:REALITYBIO without significant support from independent and reliable sources for notability independent from the show. The article content about the show is also largely unsourced. I have not found much more, e.g. Vulture 2016 (one-sentence blurb); Vulture 2012 ("This People thing is sometimes hilariously vague. [...] Edwards “has released at least three singles.”"); Screenrant 2021 ("While many fans felt Gina Glocksen and Stephanie Edwards were eliminated prematurely, the battle between Sparks, Blake Lewis, and Melinda Doolittle remains highly memorable."); MTV 2007 (interview). Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. McGinn, Andrew (2008-03-10). "Back to school, studio for former 'Idol' finalist Stephanie Edwards". USA Today. EBSCOhost J0E227753170608. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "In a few years, Stephanie Edwards should be able to give her professional opinion. The Season 6 finalist is back in school studying psychology. While most of her fellow finalists are chasing stardom, she's chasing a degree at Armstrong Atlantic State University in her hometown of Savannah, Ga. ... She still performs regularly around Savannah and goes to Atlanta on weekends to work on her pop/R&B debut. (She's still seeking a label.) Last fall, she recorded On Our Way for a CD single to benefit the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society."
2. "Stephanie Edwards Sings the Blues". South Magazine. April–May 2008. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "It's been exactly one year since Stephanie Edwards made a name for both herself and Savannah on American Idol. ... But for Edwards, who still dreams of pop stardom, the music hasn't died. These days, Edwards can be found wandering the campus of Armstrong Atlantic State University – where she is pursuing a bachelors degree in psychology – or sweating it out at the AASU gym."
3. Mobley, Chuck (2010-03-18). "Stephanie Edwards to appear at Savannah Theatre". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Stephanie Edwards, who wowed national audiences with her singing abilities on "American Idol," will be a featured performer in "Southern Nights," a musical variety show that will premiere this evening at the Savannah Theatre. ... A graduate of Windsor Forest High School, Edwards made it to the final 12 in 2007, the sixth season for "American Idol.""
4. Morris, Amy (2007-02-20). "Stephanie Edwards: Savannah Idol - Local Singer Vies for Title of 'American Idol.' She'll Step Into the Spotlight Wednesday". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "The 19-year-old Windsor Forest High School graduate beat out thousands of hopefuls to become one of 12 female contestants battling for a record deal and the title of "American Idol." ... Edwards also has a strong bond with her family. Her parents pushed her to drive to Memphis and audition for the show. Her father coordinates her outfits (from Charlotte Russe, Gadzooks and Wet Seal) which have so far stood up to judges' scrutiny. When Stephanie began to perform locally under the moniker "Uniek," her aunt, Wanda Edwards, relocated from Detroit to Savannah to shuttle her to performances."
5. Morris, Amy (2007-04-27). "Around Here, She's Still an 'Idol' - The Phone Keeps Ringing for 'American Idol' Finalist Stephanie Edwards". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: " Stephanie Edwards might not be an "American Idol," but she's plenty popular around here. Not long after stepping off the plane from California three weeks ago after a lengthy run amid the competition on the popular TV show, the Savannah singer was inundated with requests to appear at events all around the Coastal Empire. ... Stephanie's "Idol" contract prohibits her from recording an album until late August, but she already has started researching major record labels on the East Coast - the closer to Savannah, the better."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Stephanie Edwards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as reliable newspapers that together show's significant coverage for passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. The above source eval clearly shows the sources are brief mentions in promo and brief routine news mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. The above eval involved a complete BEFORE so I doubt anything else will be found. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). No objection to a consensus redirect to American Idol (season 6). // Timothy :: talk 18:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all of the sources provided by Cunard above illustrate news coverage of a post-Idol career, but the mention of her debut single in USA Today is good. I was able to find more news coverage of the single in Savannah Morning News by using ProQuest and also found mention of her second single in a Billboard article. I've added those as sources to the article. Jpcase (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy. All of the sources are largely interviews and are promotional in nature. I have noticed Cunard recently digging up sources on AfD's quite frequently, however they don't often meet WP:SIGCOV in one way or another. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All five sources I linked provide significant coverage of the subject. There is enough non-interview coverage in the sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The 86 words of coverage in the Billboard article (link) found by Jpcase further contributes to notability. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. pburka (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate season. I think the sources are short of the mark here, particularly noting both the thinness of coverage once you discount the description of her Idol run, the overreliance on a small set of local papers, and the fact that she doesn't appear to have taken any high-profile activity in the last 15 years or so, which makes me more concerned about privacy concerns for this BLP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 6) per Beccaynr & Rosguill. 33ABGirl (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. L Faraone 20:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros and Tenedos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know why this exists. It's an article for two close-by islands, both of which have their own articles. This article synthesizes random groupings to establish notability, which is absurd. They might have a common history, but that is not enough of a reason to have such an article. Aintabli (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Imbros and Tenedos which likewise mention them together in several places so I'm similarly baffled as to why this is an article. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pages are already created so no need to make this one, move it to the specific ones and delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaikha Habiba (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redundant article as per the above arguments. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a wp:MERGE discussion could be recommended. As the article notes "They are or have been treated or considered together for various purposes at different times" which are then listed. This should not have been brought to AFD. It is a merger or split decision, to be considered by editors/readers of the articles. Those persons, who are more informed than AFD participants about this area, should be allowed to do so on a slower timeline than the usually one-week period of an AFD, as they are not all likely to be active and noticing the AFD going on, much less able to bring on board the other more informed parties. They should not be bound by a random AFD decision which will simply interfere with their sensible editing and decision-making.

I think a lot of AFD nominators (not saying that it is the case here) simply don't get that AFDs are often/usually hurtful of normal editing processes and editors. And/or they simply do not care, or they do care but enjoy the hurting. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A report having been written about them both does not make them a single notable entity, nor receiving the same treatment in a treaty, nor that a church groups them in their organization. Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople#Archdioceses_and_Archbishops shows that many of the Metropolises group nearby islands and municipalities, but that doesn't mean each of these pairings or groupings need an article! Surely there are countless reports out there that might talk about a grouping of, say, Washington and Oregon, or Bali and Lombok, or Sardinia and Corsica, but a few instances of being treated together is no basis for an article. This is not a "thematic set" or a "conjunction article", it's pointless and duplicative and opens the door to virtually any arbitrary pairing. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - previous AFD and conjunction articles as a type: Also, reading the first AFD about this, the reasons for "Keep" at least as a short stub, as given by numerous editors whom I respect, make sense. Including User:bd2412's advice to "Keep as a brief description of the history of these two islands having been grouped together, but not as a disambiguation page, per User:JHunterJ". As I think about it more, it just seems a bit mind-numbing, like "stupid" (not saying or meaning that the nominator and supporting editors are stupid, but good people in groups often do come to bad decisions), to eradicate the topic of the conjunction. What, should each of the two articles include a paragraph or two about the conjunction, which is a thing? It would just be weird to require that in lieu of having one short article covering the history/usage of the conjunction. This is really an editing matter, shouldn't be at AFD at all; editors there should determine the best arrangement of information between three short articles or just one combined article, perhaps. I don't think the deletion nominator or deletion voters have really grappled with the writing problem: they just see one part of a three-part solution and "don't get" why it is the way it is; they do not actually have a complete proposal for a two-part solution (if they really tried drafting out those two articles, they would realize it is better to have a third short one too, avoiding repetition and otherwise helping out). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI a similar situation came up, is under current discussion at wt:NRHP#Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village. That discussion references a previous conjunction article, Boston Common and Public Garden. In both cases, where the conjunction is a thing because it was itself listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the preferred treatment is to have three articles.

Another conjunction example at AFD that I recall (but i just looked for and can't find easily) is a pair of hills in Germany, again where three articles were kept.

There are lots and lots of conjunctions like Sonny & Cher where the combo and each of the two components all clearly meet wp:GNG. But it is not well understood, I guess, and perhaps there should be an essay or guideline or policy statement addressing this, that technically as an editorial matter we need to have conjunctions sometimes when the two components are clearly individually notable and the combo, while not clearly individually notable, is a thing too, and it is just better writing-wise, editorial-wise, to have a short stub for the combo that is somewhat more than a disambiguation page and somewhat less than what we otherwise usually expect for a standalone article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another type of conjunction example, with more than two linked items, are architect articles which mainly consist of a list of notable buildings that are linked by having been designed by one firm, as the article Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson once was. An AFD discussion about that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson, clarified that the article at the time functioned like a conjunction. The conjunction could be referenced efficiently from each of 12 separate articles about individual buildings, avoiding the need to have 12 copies of the same collection of information. Although at the time the conjunction was not to several editors' taste, being less than what they perceived would be normal for a standalone architect article. The thing is, it shouldn't have been considered as merely a standalone, it really was a conjunction article that was part and parcel of a thematic set of related articles. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a baffling comparison. This firm is a single company. It was not kept because it was a thematic set of articles, but because it was a notable firm that designed many notable buildings, even if you created it as list of them. A "conjunction" of merely the buildings would not be notable. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per reasons provided above by Doncram Jack4576 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imbros and Tenedos are not related in a similar way as a pop duo or a firm, so these examples are not really congruent. Boston Common and Public Garden, despite similarly being a set of places, were institutionally one, which that article appears to specifically address, differently from these islands. We cannot still ignore that this page is very lacking and was forgotten for a long time. It is far from providing us with information unique to the title itself. In this case, I suggest a WP:TNT so that anyone willing to recreate can rethink about the article's scope without WP:SYNTHesizing random groupings and bring good sources. Aintabli (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, there's a call to use wp:TNT, which is an acknowledgement of validity of the topic. Please see wp:TNTTNT (to which I contributed) for explanation of the ways that TNT is _always wrong_. TNT is attractive to deletionists for some reason, but is revealing, instead. IMO the only reasonable conclusion of an AFD when wp:TNT is invoked is to "Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not affirming any validity. The TNT I suggested is given your approach. I still believe this page should not be. Aintabli (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the islands are separately notable and have their own articles. They are not notable as a pair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the content is so tiny it can easily be duplicated between the articles for each island Chidgk1 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - there is precisely zero information in the article at this time that is not already rendered in much more depth at both Tenedos and Imbros. Its existence can serve only as a stumbling block to the reader, who, instead of finding those B(-ish) class articles, will see this bizarre collection of trivia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 33ABGirl (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rosguill. It's kind of frustrating because the topic of the two islands has some neat history but it's not really enough for it's own article in it's current state. An article talking about the arbitration of the islands to Turkey that does a real deep dive would be really interesting and notable but that is not the case here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This is a strange one. Judging consensus as delete based on strength of arguments, specifically DreamRimmer's unchallenged analysis of available sources. Presence of discography in article is not an indication of notability one way or the other, for what it's worth. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Khan (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails in WP:NACTOR nd WP:SINGER.... Artist discography not discribed in article Worldiswide (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldiswide Discography is described , you might have failed to understand WP:NACTOR the person has shown notability in multiple events. person is also honoured with union territory level titles by Lieutenant governor. Tintantuckle (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintantuckle No discography was displayed in the article until the article was nominated afd. And find out whether taking union territory level titles indicates notability? nd What about WP:SINGER? Worldiswide (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldiswide it means you are saying that the discography if not mentioned does not exist? before nominating the article for deletion, you could have checked on available sources if it existed or not, it clearly indicates that you put the article for deletion just by seeing it missed out on discography, the page was recently created, reviewed and had ongoing contributions to add all the information including the missing. Yes, the awards should indicate notability as a secondary mention. Tintantuckle (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was the review done before the article was created? what do you mean... i do not understand how you are showing the criteria of both wp:singer and wp:nactor ... i think work is needed on this Worldiswide (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintantuckle I removed more then 5 unreliable sources. and now 1, 2 both mid day sources look like brand desk/ paid contant...you should work on it Worldiswide (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldiswide I would really like to know how you decided Latestly and Iwmbuzz are unreliable sources? also I do not understand how you are showing that this article fails the criteria for wp:singer and wp:nactor? the fact that if some information is missing instead of improving or researching you put articles for deletion by your own decision, I believe a thorough research is needed before nominating articles for deletion. please explain how the person fails the criteria for both? Tintantuckle (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintantuckle I had removed some unreliable sources, you have added them back to the article. You need to read wiki project hindi movie. If you think it is worth mainspace then wait for afd result (Do not answer this) Worldiswide (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldiswide wait, you haven't explained why you think it fails both criteria? you have to be clear in details so that others who join the discussion really know what's actually wrong with the page, a one-liner doesn't actually explain it well. Tintantuckle (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV arguably met, searched and found multiple reliable sources, the person has received recognition on a state level and titles also as per sources. Shivangi1738 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shivangi1738 which reliable sources? .. spacify Worldiswide (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the TOI seems to be a reliable source on this. YouTube and Facebook links aren't considered credible sources. This article does not yet meet WP:NACTOR since the Midday and Outlook sources mentioned here are plainly branded postings that fall under the category of public relations. He hasn't performed on any significant projects as a singer; hence, this article also doesn't cover WP:NSINGER. DreamRimmer (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DreamRimmer due to lack of reliable sources on the subject of the article. 33ABGirl (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi road accident[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Only covered by WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 M6 motorway crash[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Only covered by WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, misleading nomination. There are four examples of SIGCOV already cited. There is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Independent [9] listed this as one of Traffic deaths: Britain's worst road crashes in 2011. On the same road 90 minutes earlier Dave Myers, a rugby league player died. Maybe the M6 accident pages need to be combined?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see what you mean by "no WP:SIGCOV" because all four references are only about the crash. Furthermore, it doesn't fail WP:EVENTCRIT as the event was not routine, it was one of only three crashes in the country that decade which killed more than 5 people (see the link above from Davidstewartharvey). greyzxq ^talk 10:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the pages that you've linked. The general notability guidelines require substantial coverage from secondary sources, not news coverage. The event criteria require a lasting effect of historical significance, not X number of deaths. Neither news coverage nor a death count contribute to notability in any way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read what I've linked twice now, and still don't understand what you mean by "secondary sources" because news is a secondary source. If news coverage didn't contribute to notability in any way (as you said), there would be very few articles on events here because news coverage is the main source of information for most Wikipedia articles. greyzxq ^talk 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to WP:PRIMARYNEWS in the nomination statement. Some news articles can be secondary sources, but breaking news and reports on new developments are primary sources, and they do not contribute toward notability. That wouldn't really make sense, because then anything that's ever been reported in a newspaper could have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay not a policy and AFD should always be judged against policy (A good example of this was the issue surrounding footballer and cricket stubs which did not meet GNG). The policy as per User:Greyzqy newspapers are secondary, as a police or highway report would be the primary source. However looking at this article and the M6 article, merging this article into the main one would seem to be the most logical step, as there is not any mention of accidents ir safety discussed on ghe M6 page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered by The Guardian, Daily Record (Scotland) and Express & Star - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I'm persuaded by editors arguing that this article has sufficient sources to establish notability. And besides the nominator, I see no support for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Villa Canales bus disaster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Only covered by WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a road incident in which 54 people are killed feels rather exceptional. Garuda3 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. And 54 fatalities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 54 deaths is a large amount, Covered by BBC News and Prensa Libre (Guatemala) so imho meets GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The requirements for notability can be found at WP:N. You'll see that notability requires sustained coverage by secondary sources, which this subject does not have. It also requires compliance with WP:NOT, so WP:NOTNEWS may be of interest. You can find requirements for what sort of lasting effect gives inherent notability at WP:EFFECT. You'll notice that 54 people dying is nowhere near the type of effect that's expected for a topic to have presumptive notability. Any !vote that's based on the number of deaths or a brief instance of primary news coverage may be ignored by the closer per WP:DISCARD and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC News cite is a secondary source, Prensa Libre appears to be primary granted but still sources nonetheless. Well for any bus crash 54 is still a very high number. NOTNEWS and EFFECT are irrelevant here as is the rest of your comment that apparently tries debunking everyone's !votes.

Fact of the matter is the article is backed up by a secondary reliable source and a primary reliable source and there are higher fatalities than your normal average bus crash so imho with all this combined this is a notable accident. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume for a moment that the BBC article really is a secondary source. How does this article comply with WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS? Can I just create a new article for every event ever written about by the BBC? And what part of WP:GNG suggests that "54 people died" is in any way relevant? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear we have very different opinions on this so will allow others to have their say –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A-Haunting We Will Go (play)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. This play, while by a notable playwright, has never been performed by a professional theatre company. The "reviews" in the article are of performances by amateur student theatre groups; one a local review of a production at an American high school and the other an advertisement (not a review by a critic but a copy a now deprecated program which you can see here) by "Revised Edition Student Theatre Company"; the pre-professional theatre school attached to the professional Eastbourne based Revised Edition Theatre Company. I could find no secondary coverage of the play in reference works, and I personally don't think the one review in evidence, a local paper covering the local high school production, counts toward WP:SIGCOV. In other words, none of the sources provided in the first AFD which are currently in the article count as independent significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. No sigcov of non-notable play. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, with no suitable sources online. Some of the decisions made in old AfD's seem so strange to me. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darbar-e-Sadria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG (WP:OR based article) BookishReader (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree that the WP:OR policy has any relevance to this article. Sources appear to be reliable for bare facts asserted in this entry

Jack4576 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact it's unsourced? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced with a primary source i.e. its website (claiming to be the official website). Per your criteria: I can create a similar website about my place and claim notability? BookishReader (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources to add and seems to based on original research. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.